ICOMOS Colombia

In a forgotten region of our country's Caribbean coast, there is a small vernacular town whose inhabitants have the custom and ancestral tradition to invite the entire population to a big party in the home of any one who wishes to move. In the middle of the party, a ritual begins in which all participants take part with such dexterity and ability that it makes us think that there are centuries or generations of previous training. Without stopping the celebration, the people remove the roof structure and carry it in procession to the new site where the hosts will be moving. Thus, after each of these moves in this place, where houses come and houses go, the townscape is gradually but constantly modified: the house that was here today, will be there tomorrow, and the animal pens, the gardens and the orchards, all are transformed.

This ritual of moving by carrying one's house, as if conchfish, is a characteristic trait of this remote town, where that which is authentic is associated with the tradition of moving around, but of permanence within the same material structure of the house.

How many theoretic reflections about authenticity are provoked by this anecdote?

How many variables are contained in our premise that pretend to encompass a sufficiently broad and generic universe that will allow us to contemplate our vast American cultural horizon so full of paradoxes?

Any definition of authenticity that goes beyond its semantic meaning or its epistemological definition will be the product of its own time, and will be imbued by the spirit of that time. Thus, the principles of temporality of concept and perfectibility of actions are two premises that should serve us as foundation for our reflections and proposals.

To what level do we desire that the standards of an international charter on this topic reach?

How do we prevent the principles in a charter on authenticity from becoming formulas that could inhibit our capacity to respond to circumstances that cannot be generalized, that are associated to the atypical and unique cases so characteristic of our syncretic diversity, which is the mestizo nature of our regional American cultures.

Even though our debates on authenticity are useful and necessary, our interpretation of it should be as broad and flexible as our concept of culture, so that we may avoid falling into academic paradigms that would lead to the subjugation of the beliefs, rites and traditions of our communities.

AUTHENTICITY AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

When we attempt to establish the clear meaning of a word, the first impulse is to run to the dictionary to obtain its academic definition. When consulting this source, we find other words associated with testimony, identification, or identity and truth.

If we assign these concepts to cultural resources, the concept of aesthetics in its broadest sense becomes most apparent as an instrument to communicate that reality, which is translated into intangible cultural expressions and cultural resources.

If we assume that identity is based on the presence of cultural manifestation that come to us from the past, conservation would seem to require the preservation of its most significant aspects, which are the historic values and the aesthetic values as true testimony of the formative process of our culture.

There is a parallel between history and truth, as well as between heritage and authenticity. In the same way that the historian is the mediator of the former, the conservator is the same for the latter. Conservation specialists and professionals must be committed to guarantee the authenticity of the documentary and testimonial values of such resources.

Of these, the testimonial value is very evident, but the documentary requires some degree of interpretation. Both require that at the moment of intervention we be capable not only of perceiving these values, but of preserving them and making them legible, as bearers of a message from the past. This consideration is always applicable to any of the variables that have been advanced regarding authenticity in design, materials, function, use, etc.

AUTHENTICITY AND TRAINING HUMAN RESOURCES

In our country we can observe strengths and limitations which are the result of the orientations of the various schools in which our specialists were trained. Some training centers emphasize one or another aspect, and inevitably these tendencies are reflected in the criteria that are used to approach treatments in a cultural resource. The diversity and depth of studies in the various schools, combined with the level of competence of each individual professional also generates a full spectrum of eclectic idiosyncrasies on how to approach the topic of authenticity. There are those who resist making any kind of replacement or reconstruction [of missing elements] in spite of the existence of full documentation and of the fact that the elements may have collapsed yesterday. Others argue that all evidence must be retained, and support that [no later additions] may be removed even though such additions may obscure valuable spatial or formal aspects o may even threaten the stability of the structure.

For example, those specialist that do not support their work with historic research when taking decisions on treatments, are usually the enemies of replacement, and at the same time tend towards the indiscriminate insertion of new technologies, even in cases where traditional methods have proven to display a better behavior. In the same way, they give greater importance to new functions, with a marked inclination towards improving the aesthetic appearance of the building, the public space, the historic district and the archaeological parks.

DESIGN AND AUTHENTICITY

The relation of authenticity to design is considered through he concept of building types (spatial structure) and form (formal attributes). In those cases where there is insufficient documentary evidence to allow the re-establishment of the formal and spatial characteristics, it valid, according to the guidelines, to reinstate the principal characteristics. In case of restorations based on analogies that are more or less hypothetical, it is tolerable to "complement" in abstract form the spatial structure, so that the intervention will be discernible.

CONSTRUCTIVE VALUE AND AUTHENTICITY

In our country, the replacement of technical elements is a function of the availability of matching materials, as long as the forest reserves are not negatively impacted or the cost is not excessive.

ORIGINAL USE

There are standards that strive to maintain the original uses through a planning policy regarding land use. Nevertheless, it has not yet been possible in Colombia to fine tune the necessary mechanisms to guarantee that the traditional inhabitants in specific neighborhoods will remain there. In some cities, changes in use in institutional structures must be reviewed by Cultural Heritage Protection Boards.

In principle, a change in use is only desirable when the original function has disappeared, or when the transformation in use is the only viable survival for a building or an urban district.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

The instruments to protect landscapes or gardens is limited to natural and archaeological parks that are recognized by law. Even though there is an obligation to complete impact studies prior to civil and infrastructure projects, it is still difficult to avoid the effects on archaeological sites that have not been explored.

Fortunately, the government institutions, through the design of manuals and the establishment of guidelines, are attempting to make the specialists accept methodologies that are becoming more and more rigorous for all interventions in the cultural heritage. The attempt is to also approximate them to international doctrines and standards and to find new ways to evaluate that are coherent with our eminently diverse and syncretic heritage.

Rodolfo Ulloa Vergara

President, ICOMOS Colombia